RAMPRASAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI J. L. Jain appointed by Legal Aid Committee for the appellant. Shri S. H. Sen, Dy. Govt. Advocate for prosecution. Both of them have been heard. Evidence has been examined in view of arguments advanced. The prosecution case in brief is that on 19-12-1990 at 1. 30 p. m. the appellant was found naked on the body of prosecutrix Chunni, aged about 11 years who was also naked. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was attempting to commit rape on prosecutrix Chunni. The appellant was noticed by prosecution witnesses Walia (P. W. 2) and Kalu (P. W. 3) and thereafter appellant was caught. The appellant after being caught wanted to give some money to the prosecutrix and these witnesses for settling the said act done by him. After usual investigation the appellant was prosecuted. He pleaded not guilty for the offence for which he was prosecuted.

(2.) IT is the submission of Shri Jain that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, learned trial Judge should have acquitted him. Shri Sen, Dy. Govt. Advocate justified the order of conviction and sentence.

(3.) PROSECUTRIX Chunni stated in her evidence that appellant caught her and thereafter mounted on her body and undressed her petticoat as well as his pant. As per her evidence, Walia, Kalu and Mangu came at the spot and thus, the appellant was caught. P. Ws. Walia and Kalu have supported the evidence of prosecutrix Chunni. Their evidence shows that they noticed that appellant was mounting on Chunni who was naked. Their evidence also shows that appellant had undressed the prosecutrix.